Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 23 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTEntitlement to claim benefit u/s 10B - 10 years exemption by amendment to sub-section (3) of section 10B with effect from 1/4/1994 or benefit of 8 years exemption under amendment by the Finance Act, 1988, with effect from 1/4/1989, particularly, when assessee commenced manufacturing/production from the year 1993 ? - Held that:- We find substance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Assessee that an Assessee would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended provisions of Section 10B extending the period of exemption to 10 years from the date of the relevant assessment year in which the manufacturing operations commenced. Hence, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer to decide the question on the basis of the aforesaid decision of the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. DSL Software Ltd. (2011 (10) TMI 423 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT). Interpretation of the provisions of Section 80HHC - ITAT deleting the exclusion made by the AO in respect of amount received towards uptopping vessel income, machinery hire income, barge management expenses and in respect of amount received towards miscellaneous income, sale of scrap, service charges, grant-in-aid for medical expenses, recovery of fuel, group insurance, deptch money - Held that:- The test has necessarily to be whether or not 90% sought to be excluded is independent income having no nexus with export and therefore similar to the income described in sub clause (baa) of the Explanation to Section 80HHC of the Act. Having gone through the impugned order of the Tribunal, we do not find any detailed discussion about the test applied by the Tribunal. It appears that for the Assessment Year under consideration, the Tribunal relied on its order for the Assessment Year 2001-02 and held that the items under consideration are either operational or reimbursement of expenses and, therefore, the Tribunal held that all these items are not falling under explanation. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court in Sesa Goa Ltd. (2015 (5) TMI 621 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), we are inclined to remand the matter.
|